For a moment, let’s put aside the issue of whether or not file sharing is right or wrong.

Whether or not file sharing is morally permissible, it’s here and it’s not going any where. If the rest of the world learns nothing else from the internet, they should at least take home the following truism: The internet will always do whatever the internet wants.

This is the second in a two part series on my recent decision to stop eating meat. This has been going on for about 9 months.

So here’s the twist: I don’t think that animals have a worth equal to humans. I don’t even think there is anything inherently wrong in eating animals. The crux of my argument is that the unnecessary production of suffering is where the ethical problem lies.

In a hypothetical world where animals were raised and slaughtered in humane and painless manner, I don’t see any ethical problem with eating meat. There are other problems, of course: the production of meat, even in its current cost-cutting and suffering-inducing state, is not economical. The amount of energy expended to raise food animals doesn’t get recouped by the value of eating the edible bits. The humane production of meat probably isn’t going to be more cost effective. But that’s a different argument.

This is the first in a two part series on my recent decision to stop eating meat. This has been going on for about 9 months.
“Cognitive Dissonance” is a Psychology term that refers to the unpleasant mental state of holding two conflicting ideas. Essentially, the mind will perform amazing rhetorical backflips in order to ease this type of conflict.

The concept itself isn’t new, but I started thinking about it in relation to vegetarianism/veganism after listening to a Definitely Not the Opera podcast in which Carol Tavris was interviewed about her new book Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

What does cognitive dissonance have to do with vegetarianism? Well, I think it was an encounter with cognitive dissonance that fueled my rather abrupt decision to stop eating meat.